2025:HHC:6841 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3863 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kundan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner have prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to count daily wage service of the petitioner towards qualifying service as per the law laid down in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the petitioner may be paid pension w.e.f May, 2023, the date from which notification has been issued by the Government, with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of his grievances as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2